self-review

Solid

Spawn a reviewer subagent with 4-6 specific verification questions before declaring non-trivial code work done. Triggers when changes are >30 LOC, multi-file, hot-path, prompt-affecting, or genuinely uncertain. Bad asks produce bad answers — this skill forces structured verification questions, not "is this good?"

AI & Automation 18 stars 5 forks Updated 3 days ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 81/100

Stars 20%
43
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Self-Review Run an explicit second-pair-of-eyes pass on non-trivial work before declaring done. Quality of review depends on quality of question. ## When to RUN self-review - More than ~30 lines OR multi-file change - Hot path (many requests flow through this code) - Subtle interactions with code you might have missed - Prompt or output affecting user-visible content - Code not worked in recently (mental model might be stale) - Any genuine uncertainty after writing the change ## When to SKIP self-review - One-line edit, mechanical fix, obvious diff - Pure rename or move with no logic change - Code just written with full context, low blast radius - Cost-benefit doesn't justify (review takes longer than the fix did) If skipping, say so explicitly: "Skipping self-review — N-line trivial fix." Don't silently bypass. ## How to execute ### Step 1 — Set context (3-5 lines max) State, in plain language: - The bug / feature / what was asked - The cause (what was actually wrong) - The fix (what was actually changed) ### Step 2 — List specific changes ``` - path/to/file_one.ts:L123-L145 — replaced regex with structured parser - path/to/file_two.ts:L56 — added null guard for empty corpus - path/to/config.json — bumped diversity_threshold 0.6 → 0.75 ``` ### Step 3 — Ask 4-6 specific verification questions **Bad asks (do not produce useful answers):** - "Is this good?" - "Does this look right?" - "Any issues?" - "Did I miss anything?" **Good asks (concrete, falsifiable, nam...

Details

Author
wrg32786
Repository
wrg32786/aigent-os
Created
2 months ago
Last Updated
3 days ago
Language
JavaScript
License
MIT

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Listed

self-review

Review a completed diff or change set for correctness, security, regressions, scope, and missing tests. Use in author mode before handoff or in read-only mode when the user asks to review, inspect, check readiness, or report findings. Do not replace runtime completion evidence from verify-done, and do not fix findings during a review-only request.

1 Updated 3 weeks ago
adityaarakeri
Code & Development Listed

self-review

Review your OWN in-progress change as a hostile stranger would, before any PR exists: run it mid-work or right before pushing. Gathers the contract first (Jira issue AC, commit messages, the diff's own claim, sibling conventions), then runs nine passes (contract conformance, completeness, premise verification, semantic delta, failure paths, blind spots, blast radius, convention, naming) and fans them out to parallel subagents so each angle is judged independently, then merges them into one ranked Korean finding list with file:line evidence. Its job is to counteract author tunnel vision by hunting the cases you never considered, including uncommitted and untracked work. Local analysis only: it never edits, commits, or posts. For judging other people's review comments on an existing PR, use review-triage instead. Triggers on phrases like '내 코드 셀프 리뷰', '푸시 전에 검토해줘', '작업 중인 변경 리뷰해줘', '빠뜨린 케이스 없는지 봐줘', '커밋 전에 스스로 리뷰', 'self-review my changes', 'review my own work before I push', 'what did I miss in this change'.

0 Updated 1 weeks ago
Srltas
Code & Development Listed

self-code-review

Critical self-review of code you just wrote or are about to ship. Use after completing a coding task, before committing, or when the user says "review your code", "check your work", "audit this", or "is this clean?". Produces an honest assessment with a concrete improvement plan — only if improvements are warranted. Never forces changes for the sake of appearing thorough.

0 Updated 1 weeks ago
vb-tyagi